Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV20297, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20297    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Plaintiff Blake Dixon, as personal representative of the Estate of Charles Edward Dixon, deceased, and on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate of Charles Dixon, moves for a court order staying this California action while the parties litigate the issue of personal jurisdiction in an action filed in the district court in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

The court has inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.  (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)  Trial judges have inherent powers to manage and fashion procedures to control litigation to ensure the orderly administration of justice.  (Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-1379.)

“When an action is brought in a court of this state involving the same parties and the same subject matter as an action already pending in a court of another jurisdiction, a stay of the California proceedings is not a matter of right, but within the sound discretion of the trial court.”  (Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208, 215.)  “In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions.”  (Ibid.)  “It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced.”  (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff states this action arises from a helicopter crash that occurred in the state of Arkansas, Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California, and Plaintiff first filed a lawsuit in the district court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma against six defendants including Robinson on May 26, 2021.  Plaintiff explains that this California action was filed on May 27, 2021 as a savings action in the event Defendant Robinson objected to personal jurisdiction in the Oklahoma action.  Plaintiff further states the Oklahoma action pleads the same causes of action against Robinson as those pled in this California action. 

Plaintiff indicates that the parties have agreed to extend the time period for Robinson to answer the Oklahoma complaint until such time that certain wreckage inspections are completed.  Plaintiff provides that the National Transportation Safety Board retained jurisdiction over the wreckage until shortly before the two-year statute of limitations expired such that Plaintiff could not perform certain disassembly of the wreckage until all parties could be assembled for an inspection.  Plaintiff states that the first inspection took place on January 11, 2022 and a follow-up inspection is being scheduled and expected to take place the first week of November 2022.  Plaintiff explains that if he elects to maintain his causes of action against Robinson after the November inspection, Robinson will be requested to answer the complaint in Oklahoma and Robinson’s current position is that Oklahoma lacks personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiff contends that, under these circumstances, a stay is appropriate as the stay would prevent duplicative discovery, court rulings, and will conserve judicial resources.  According to Plaintiff, Defendant Robinson does not oppose the stay.

Given that the same claims are being asserted against Defendant in the Oklahoma action and this California action and the California action was only filed as a savings action in the event Defendant Robinson objected to personal jurisdiction in the Oklahoma action, the Court finds that a stay of these proceedings in this California action is appropriate.  A stay would promote judicial efficiency and conserve judicial resources in this case while Plaintiff decides whether to maintain his causes of action against Robinson and, if so, for the parties litigate the personal jurisdiction issue in Oklahoma.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings.  As such, the Court orders this California action stayed pending further order of this Court and vacates the Final Status Conference and Trial dates. 

            Further, the Court sets a Status Conference re:  Stay of Proceedings and Oklahoma Action on December 16, 2022 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32 and orders Plaintiff to file and serve a status report on or before December 9, 2022. 

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.